During the inter-university conference on business and economics at Adamson University, where she was a keynote speaker, senator Miriam said that the law is unconstitutional.
"In fact, the constitutional provision, on the surface, sounds absolute: 'No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech.' I humbly submit that while the general rule is that a law is presumed to be constitutional, there is an exception when the law limits free speech. In that case, the law is presumed to be either neutral, or presumed to be unconstitutional. Because it limits free speech, the Cybercrime Act begins with a presumption of unconstitutionality," she said.
She also added that market place ideas are suppressed due to the chilling effect of the law.
"The Cybercrime Act is a law that dangerously limits the growth of the marketplace of ideas. Therefore, it is presumed to be unconstitutional. But in addition, the law is unconstitutional, because it uses language that is overbroad, and language that is too vague. In other words, it violates the overbreadth doctrine and the void for vagueness doctrine in constitutional law."
She also enumerated the sections of the law that are too vague and wide:
- Sec. 4 para 4. It makes libel a cybercrime, if committed online;
- Sec. 5. It punishes any person who aids or abets the commission of any cybercrime, even if it is only through Facebook or Twitter;
- Sec. 6. It adopts the entire Penal Code, if the crime is committed by the use of information technology, but the penalty shall be one degree higher;
- Sec. 7. It makes the same crime punishable, both under the Penal Code and the Cybercrime Act;
- Sec. 19. It authorizes the Department of Justice to issue an order to restrict access to computer data which is found to be prima facie in violation of the new law. Sec. 19 is called "the takedown clause."
Senator Miriam was unable to vote for the bill as she got sick during the voting.
0 comments:
Post a Comment